[Board] OGC Relationship

Fri Jan 5 09:26:58 PST 2007

Oh I'm against basically any level of trying to prevent our members from 
doing work that might be considered 'standards work'.  I thought that 
saying 'we're not in the standards business' would basically mean that 
we wouldn't say that anything our members collaborate on is an 'official 
standard'.  Just that it's an incubating space for things that may turn 
in to real standards, for example when they go to the OGC.  In my 
opinion we can do all these activities we speak of, and even let them 
become pseudo-standards.  But we as an organization are not in the 
business of promoting the standards or trying to get anyone to use them. 
  If we want to do that, then we pass along to the OGC.

I was assuming that's about all they wanted out of us?

When I talked to Raj awhile ago the thing he mentioned as by far having 
the most value to OGC would be for OSGeo members to actually collaborate 
on creating standards.  And I'm pretty sure he's also fine with us 
starting them in a 'safer' space like our wiki, and passing them on to 
general OGC when we're happier with them.

Chris

Michael P. Gerlek wrote:
> No, our charter doesn't say we're in the standards business -- but
> nonetheless, I see a lot of standards-like discussions going on via
> OSGeo channels.
> 
> I think it would be a mistake to provide a commitment to OGC that we'd
> not do standards work, for two reasons.
> 
> First, if we tell our members that they can't do standards within OSGeo
> channels, then they'll just route around us in classic internet fashion
> and find some other venue.  And so if we really want to serve our
> community's needs and interests, why would we force them to go somewhere
> else?
> 
> Second, who's to say what "developing and supporting our own standards"
> means?  Discussions on a mailing list about possible extensions to WMS?
> Collaboratively writing up a WCS change proposal on our wiki to submit
> to OGC?  Implementing a prototype of something in MapServer?  How could
> you possibly enforce this?  Who's gonna be the one to say "Sorry, guys,
> but you can't use the osgeo IRC channel to talk about testing WMS-T
> because WMS is an OGC spec" or "Folks, could you please stop talking
> about possible alternatives to ebRIM on the geodata mailing list,
> because we don't want to look like we're contravening the OGC spec"?
> 
> I'm all in favor of working in with OGC, but not to the point of making
> foundation-level commitments that go against our members' obvious needs
> and wants.
> 
> -mpg
> 
>  
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: board-bounces at lists.osgeo.org 
>> [mailto:board-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Gary Lang
>> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 11:01 AM
>> To: Frank Warmerdam (External); board at lists.osgeo.org
>> Subject: RE: [Board] OGC Relationship
>>
>> "I'm not sure what we would offer OGC in return.  I suspect ultimately
>> what would be most valuable to them is some sort of commitment to not
>> become a a "standards development" organization.  This avoids
>> duplication, confusion in the marketplace, and what they 
>> might consider
>> competition."
>>
>> >From talking with David, I think is exactly what we would usefully
>> offer, and for two reasons:
>>
>> a) we're not in the standards business. It's not in our top 
>> priorities,
>> last I looked
>> b) exactly what you said - "avoids duplication, confusion in the
>> marketplace"
>>
>> If a) is true, then providing comfort and clarity around b) seems a
>> no-brainer.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: board-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
>> [mailto:board-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Frank Warmerdam
>> (External)
>> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 11:03 AM
>> To: board at lists.osgeo.org
>> Subject: [Board] OGC Relationship
>>
>> Folks,
>>
>> I'm taking the liberty of moving (at least part) of this discussion to
>> the public board list.
>>
>> I am favorable on the idea of a formal liason relationship with OGC
>> though I don't consider it particularly critical to us or them since
>> there is already extensive cross membership and cross pollination.
>>
>> If we are to have a formal liason relationship, one benefit I 
>> would like
>> to see is the ability for us give some developers access to 
>> working OGC
>> documents, and for those developers to be involved in OGC 
>> testbeds, and
>> working groups as OSGeo representatives.  I believe the OGC portal
>> allows members to setup accounts for individuals to access the portal.
>> We could manage a list of developers-with-access via this mechanism,
>> with the understanding that we would never have more than some fixed
>> number of developers (or users really) so authorized.  I think even
>> doing this for 5-10 would be plenty since most OSGeo project 
>> folks with
>> an interest in OGC work already have access through corporate
>> memberships.
>>
>> I'm not sure what we would offer OGC in return.  I suspect ultimately
>> what would be most valuable to them is some sort of commitment to not
>> become a a "standards development" organization.  This avoids
>> duplication, confusion in the marketplace, and what they 
>> might consider
>> competition.
>>
>> I'd be agreeable with this, but it must be understood that
>> self-organizing working groups within and between OSGeo projects are
>> likely to develop specifications such as GeoRSS, or the web tile
>> specification whether we encourage it or not, and I don't 
>> want to be in
>> the position of discouraging
>> that.  So we must be careful that such activities are not precluded.
>> At
>> most I think the board could offer to not develop and support our own
>> standards development process - understanding that we won't supress it
>> either.
>>
>> The other angle might be some sort of more active involvement of OSGeo
>> projects in OGC testbeds and other IE efforts.  However, it 
>> is hard for
>> us to force project involvement.  It might be appropriate for the
>> foundation to provide some modest supporting funding for project
>> involvement in OGC testbeds and interoperability experiments.  For
>> instance, providing travel funding.
>>
>> Note that there are at least a few people who would like to see OSGeo
>> become a sort of light weight agile standards development 
>> organization.
>> I'm not keen on that, but it might be prudent to give these folks a
>> chance to make their case.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> -- 
>> ---------------------------------------+----------------------
>> ----------
>> ---------------------------------------+------
>> I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam,
>> warmerdam at pobox.com
>> light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
>> and watch the world go round - Rush    | President OSGeo,
>> http://osgeo.org
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Board mailing list
>> Board at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Board mailing list
>> Board at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> Board at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
> 
> !DSPAM:1003,459f1490125821362196140!
> 

-- 
Chris Holmes
The Open Planning Project
http://topp.openplans.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: cholmes.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 269 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/attachments/20070105/80744326/attachment.vcf>